BACKGROUND    In​ ​June​ ​2017,​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​of​ ​Canada​ ​released​ ​a​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​asking​ ​Canadians​ ​to submit​ ​comments​ ​that​ ​will​ ​improve​ ​federal​ ​protections​ for​ ​the​ ​environment.​ ​The​ ​Paper​ ​marks the​ ​one-year​ ​mark​ ​in​ ​an​ ​ongoing​ ​review​ ​of​ ​environmental​ ​assessment,​ ​energy,​ ​nuclear, fisheries,​ ​and​ ​navigation​ ​laws​ ​in​ ​Canada.     Canada’s​ ​environmental​ ​protections​ ​are​ ​flawed.​ ​The​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​makes​ ​it​ ​clear​ ​from​ ​the start​ ​that​ ​protections​ ​for​ ​fisheries​ ​and​ ​water​ ​are​ ​insufficient,​ ​that​ ​there​ ​needs​ ​to​ ​be​ ​more transparency​ ​around​ ​the​ ​information,​ ​knowledge,​ ​and​ ​science​ ​used​ ​to​ ​make​ ​decisions,​ ​and that​ ​public​ ​participation​ ​opportunities​ ​are​ ​limited​ ​and​ ​do​ ​not​ ​always​ ​fall​ ​at​ ​the​ ​appropriate time​ ​in​ ​the​ ​decision-making​ ​process.​ ​The​ ​needs​ ​to​ ​improve​ ​consultation​ ​with​ ​Indigenous communities​ ​and​ ​to​ ​include​ ​Indigenous​ ​knowledge​ ​in​ ​decision-making​ ​are​ ​also​ ​referenced throughout​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper.     While​ ​Canada’s​ ​environmental​ ​laws​ ​have​ ​never​ ​been​ ​perfect,​ ​there​​is​ ​a​ ​direct​ ​connection between​ ​many​ ​of​ ​the​ ​key​ ​problems​ ​identified​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​and​ ​changes​ ​made​ ​to federal​ ​laws​ ​in​ ​recent​ ​years.​ ​Between​ ​2009​ ​and​ ​2012,​ ​every​ ​major​ ​federal​ ​environmental​ ​law was​ ​changed.​ ​Key​ ​environment​ ​and​ ​fisheries​ ​programs​ ​were​ ​cut.​ ​Most​ ​of​ ​the​ ​legislative​ ​and budget​ ​decisions​ ​were​ ​made​ ​without​ ​warning,​ ​consultation,​ ​or​ ​support​ ​from​ ​experts​ ​or​ ​the public.​ ​Trust​ ​in​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​process,​ ​as​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​notes,​ ​has​ ​been​ ​lost.    The​ ​federal​ ​environmental​ ​review​ ​process​ ​is​ ​not​ ​just​ ​about​ ​updating​ ​laws.​ ​The​ ​review​ ​process is​ ​about​ ​rebuilding​ ​trust.​ ​Many​ ​of​ ​the​ ​changes​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​“considers”​ ​improve​ ​the current​ ​situation.​ ​A​ ​few,​ ​however,​ ​fall​ ​far​ ​short.    Detailed​ ​comments​ ​on​ ​each​ ​topic​ ​were​ ​submitted​ ​by​ ​Swim​ ​Drink​ ​Fish​ ​Canada​ ​or​ ​our​ ​Lake Ontario​ ​Waterkeeper​ ​program​ ​at​ ​each​ ​stage​ ​of​ ​the​ ​consultation​ ​process.​ ​This​ ​submission focuses​ ​on​ ​our​ ​high-level​ ​response​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper.​ ​In​ ​particular,​ ​we​ ​share​ ​our concerns​ ​about​ ​the​ ​lack​ ​of​ ​progress​ ​being​ ​made​ ​to​ ​protect​ ​navigation​ ​rights​ ​in​ ​Canada.    Swim​ ​Drink​ ​Fish​ ​Canada​ ​is​ ​a​ ​registered​ ​charity​ ​that​ ​uses​ ​law,​ ​science,​ ​culture,​ ​and​ ​digital media​ ​to​ ​protect​ ​a​ ​swimmable,​ ​drinkable,​ ​fishable​ ​future.  

1.
Re:​ ​Environmental​ ​and​ ​Regulatory​ ​Reviews
Discussion​ ​Paper
SUBMISSION​ ​FROM:
Swim​ ​Drink​ ​Fish​ ​Canada
SUBMITTED​ ​TO:
Government​ ​of​ ​Canada
via​ ​www.discussionpaper.ca
CONTACT:
Mark​ ​Mattson
President
℅​ ​admin@swimdrinkfish.ca
(416)​ ​861-1237
August​ ​28,​ ​2017
Swim​ ​Drink​ ​Fish​ ​Canada​ ​|​ ​​ ​Charity,​ ​no.​ ​86262​ ​27231​ ​RR0001
Home​ ​of​ ​Lake​ ​Ontario​ ​Waterkeeper,​ ​Swim​ ​Guide,​ ​and​ ​Watermark​ ​Project
379​ ​Adelaide​ ​Street​ ​West,​ ​Toronto,​ ​ON,​ ​M5V​ ​1S4​ ​|​ ​416.861.1237
Page​ ​1​ ​of​ ​7

2.
BACKGROUND
In​ ​June​ ​2017,​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​of​ ​Canada​ ​released​ ​a​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​asking​ ​Canadians​ ​to
submit​ ​comments​ ​that​ ​will​ ​improve​ ​federal​ ​protections​ ​for​ ​the​ ​environment.​ ​The​ ​Paper​ ​marks
the​ ​one-year​ ​mark​ ​in​ ​an​ ​ongoing​ ​review​ ​of​ ​environmental​ ​assessment,​ ​energy,​ ​nuclear,
fisheries,​ ​and​ ​navigation​ ​laws​ ​in​ ​Canada.
Canada’s​ ​environmental​ ​protections​ ​are​ ​flawed.​ ​The​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​makes​ ​it​ ​clear​ ​from​ ​the
start​ ​that​ ​protections​ ​for​ ​fisheries​ ​and​ ​water​ ​are​ ​insufficient,​ ​that​ ​there​ ​needs​ ​to​ ​be​ ​more
transparency​ ​around​ ​the​ ​information,​ ​knowledge,​ ​and​ ​science​ ​used​ ​to​ ​make​ ​decisions,​ ​and
that​ ​public​ ​participation​ ​opportunities​ ​are​ ​limited​ ​and​ ​do​ ​not​ ​always​ ​fall​ ​at​ ​the​ ​appropriate
time​ ​in​ ​the​ ​decision-making​ ​process.​ ​The​ ​needs​ ​to​ ​improve​ ​consultation​ ​with​ ​Indigenous
communities​ ​and​ ​to​ ​include​ ​Indigenous​ ​knowledge​ ​in​ ​decision-making​ ​are​ ​also​ ​referenced
throughout​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper.
While​ ​Canada’s​ ​environmental​ ​laws​ ​have​ ​never​ ​been​ ​perfect,​ ​there​ ​is​ ​a​ ​direct​ ​connection
between​ ​many​ ​of​ ​the​ ​key​ ​problems​ ​identified​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​and​ ​changes​ ​made​ ​to
federal​ ​laws​ ​in​ ​recent​ ​years.​ ​Between​ ​2009​ ​and​ ​2012,​ ​every​ ​major​ ​federal​ ​environmental​ ​law
was​ ​changed.​ ​Key​ ​environment​ ​and​ ​fisheries​ ​programs​ ​were​ ​cut.​ ​Most​ ​of​ ​the​ ​legislative​ ​and
budget​ ​decisions​ ​were​ ​made​ ​without​ ​warning,​ ​consultation,​ ​or​ ​support​ ​from​ ​experts​ ​or​ ​the
public.​ ​Trust​ ​in​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​process,​ ​as​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​notes,​ ​has​ ​been​ ​lost.
The​ ​federal​ ​environmental​ ​review​ ​process​ ​is​ ​not​ ​just​ ​about​ ​updating​ ​laws.​ ​The​ ​review​ ​process
is​ ​about​ ​rebuilding​ ​trust.​ ​Many​ ​of​ ​the​ ​changes​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​“considers”​ ​improve​ ​the
current​ ​situation.​ ​A​ ​few,​ ​however,​ ​fall​ ​far​ ​short.
Detailed​ ​comments​ ​on​ ​each​ ​topic​ ​were​ ​submitted​ ​by​ ​Swim​ ​Drink​ ​Fish​ ​Canada​ ​or​ ​our​ ​Lake
Ontario​ ​Waterkeeper​ ​program​ ​at​ ​each​ ​stage​ ​of​ ​the​ ​consultation​ ​process.​ ​This​ ​submission
focuses​ ​on​ ​our​ ​high-level​ ​response​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper.​ ​In​ ​particular,​ ​we​ ​share​ ​our
concerns​ ​about​ ​the​ ​lack​ ​of​ ​progress​ ​being​ ​made​ ​to​ ​protect​ ​navigation​ ​rights​ ​in​ ​Canada.
Swim​ ​Drink​ ​Fish​ ​Canada​ ​is​ ​a​ ​registered​ ​charity​ ​that​ ​uses​ ​law,​ ​science,​ ​culture,​ ​and​ ​digital
media​ ​to​ ​protect​ ​a​ ​swimmable,​ ​drinkable,​ ​fishable​ ​future.
Page​ ​2​ ​of​ ​7

3.
COMMENTARY
The​ ​changes​ ​being​ ​considered​ ​will​ ​not​ ​restore​ ​lost​ ​protections​ ​to​ ​the
Navigation​ ​Protection​ ​Act​.
The​ ​biggest​ ​disappointment​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​is​ ​the​ ​section​ ​on​ ​changes​ ​being
considered​ ​to​ ​the​ ​​Navigation​ ​Protection​ ​Act​.​ ​The​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​proposes​ ​minor​ ​changes
that​ ​will​ ​do​ ​little​ ​more​ ​than​ ​make​ ​it​ ​simpler​ ​to​ ​add​ ​the​ ​names​ ​of​ ​navigable​ ​waters​ ​to​ ​a​ ​list.
These​ ​minor​ ​changes​ ​are​ ​shockingly​ ​inadequate.​ ​They​ ​are​ ​so​ ​meaningless,​ ​in​ ​fact,​ ​that​ ​the
we​ ​can​ ​only​ ​conclude​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​of​ ​Canada​ ​stands​ ​by​ ​changes​ ​made​ ​to​ ​the
Navigable​ ​Waters​ ​Protection​ ​Act​ ​​in​ ​2009-2012.
To​ ​be​ ​clear:​ ​the​ ​heading​ ​of​ ​this​ ​section​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​is​ ​misleading.​ ​No​ ​lost
protections​ ​are​ ​being​ ​“restored”.​ ​No​ ​progress​ ​is​ ​being​ ​made.
In​ ​2009,​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​of​ ​Canada​ ​eliminated​ ​universal​ ​navigation​ ​protections​ ​for​ ​people​ ​in
Canada.​ ​Under​ ​the​ ​old​ ​system,​ ​the​ ​mere​ ​act​ ​of​ ​navigating​ ​(e.g.,​ ​boating)​ ​on​ ​water​ ​made​ ​a
body​ ​of​ ​water​ ​“navigable”.​ ​This​ ​“in​ ​until​ ​it’s​ ​out”​ ​approach​ ​protected​ ​navigation​ ​by​ ​default​ ​and
put​ ​the​ ​onus​ ​on​ ​proponents​ ​and​ ​government​ ​to​ ​consult​ ​affected​ ​people.
Under​ ​the​ ​new​ ​system,​ ​only​ ​bodies​ ​of​ ​water​ ​listed​ ​in​ ​a​ ​specific​ ​Schedule​ ​are​ ​considered
navigable.​ ​In​ ​other​ ​words,​ ​it​ ​assumes​ ​no​ ​waterbody​ ​is​ ​navigable​ ​and​ ​then​ ​puts​ ​the​ ​onus​ ​on
the​ ​public​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​otherwise.​ ​This​ ​“out​ ​until​ ​it’s​ ​in”​ ​approach​ ​ultimately​ ​means​ ​that​ ​some
people​ ​in​ ​Canada​ ​enjoy​ ​more​ ​protections​ ​than​ ​others.
The​ ​new​ ​system​ ​is​ ​ridiculous,​ ​unfair,​ ​and​ ​unworkable.​ ​It​ ​places​ ​an​ ​enormous​ ​burden​ ​on​ ​the
public​ ​to​ ​learn​ ​about​ ​the​ ​law,​ ​to​ ​identify​ ​waterbodies​ ​they​ ​consider​ ​“navigable”,​ ​and​ ​to
pre-register​ ​those​ ​waterbodies​ ​​just​ ​in​ ​case​​ ​a​ ​future​ ​project​ ​might​ ​affect​ ​navigation.
Furthermore,​ ​the​ ​new​ ​system​ ​relies​ ​so​ ​heavily​ ​on​ ​self-regulation​ ​that​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​practical​ ​way
to​ ​ensure​ ​people​ ​even​ ​hear​ ​about​ ​projects​ ​that​ ​might​ ​affect​ ​their​ ​waterbody​ ​in​ ​advance.​ ​As
the​ ​written​ ​submissions​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Standing​ ​Committee​ ​on​ ​Transport​ ​make​ ​clear,​ ​this​ ​unfair
approach​ ​will​ ​disproportionately​ ​affect​ ​Indigenous​ ​communities.
The​ ​old​ ​system​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​restored.​ ​It​ ​depended​ ​heavily​ ​on​ ​the​ ​public​ ​consultation​ ​and
decision-making​ ​processes​ ​triggered​ ​under​ ​the​ ​old​ ​​Canadian​ ​Environmental​ ​Assessment​ ​Act​.
The​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​makes​ ​it​ ​clear​ ​that​ ​the​ ​EA​ ​process​ ​is​ ​moving​ ​in​ ​a​ ​different​ ​direction,​ ​so
a​ ​new​ ​way​ ​to​ ​protect​ ​navigation​ ​rights​ ​must​ ​be​ ​found.
Since​ ​the​ ​launch​ ​of​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​environmental​ ​review​ ​process,​ ​navigation​ ​rights​ ​have​ ​received
less​ ​government​ ​attention​ ​than​ ​other​ ​topics.​ ​There​ ​were​ ​fewer​ ​meetings,​ ​fewer​ ​discussion
Page​ ​3​ ​of​ ​7

4.
resources,​ ​and​ ​less​ ​public​ ​outreach​ ​than​ ​environmental​ ​assessment,​ ​energy,​ ​and​ ​fisheries
topics​ ​received.​ ​The​ ​Committee​ ​process​ ​was​ ​riddled​ ​with​ ​partisan​ ​bickering​ ​and​ ​the​ ​final
report​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​adequately​ ​reflect​ ​public​ ​knowledge​ ​and​ ​perspectives.​ ​The​ ​official
Government​ ​response​ ​expressed​ ​a​ ​desire​ ​to​ ​go​ ​“beyond”​ ​the​ ​Committee​ ​recommendations,
but​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​is​ ​uninspiring.
Trust​ ​is​ ​not​ ​yet​ ​there.​ ​The​ ​federal​ ​government​ ​has​ ​yet​ ​to​ ​demonstrate​ ​a​ ​true​ ​desire​ ​to​ ​listen​ ​to
the​ ​public​ ​and​ ​Indigenous​ ​communities​ ​and​ ​to​ ​understand​ ​what​ ​navigation​ ​really​ ​means​ ​to
them.​ ​As​ ​a​ ​result,​ ​the​ ​regulatory​ ​proposals​ ​and​ ​the​ ​notion​ ​of​ ​“lists”​ ​of​ ​waterbodies​ ​are​ ​-​ ​and
will​ ​remain​ ​-​ ​deeply​ ​flawed.
Navigation​ ​rights​ ​cut​ ​to​ ​the​ ​heart​ ​of​ ​environmental​ ​protection​ ​in​ ​Canada.​ ​They​ ​are​ ​deeply
connected​ ​to​ ​notions​ ​of​ ​freedom​ ​and​ ​identity.​ ​Any​ ​system​ ​that​ ​ties​ ​navigation​ ​rights​ ​to​ ​a​ ​list​ ​of
specific​ ​bodies​ ​of​ ​water,​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​the​ ​actual​ ​act​ ​of​ ​navigation,​ ​is​ ​a​ ​failure.​ ​Any​ ​system​ ​that
gives​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​government​ ​the​ ​power​ ​to​ ​decide​ ​where​ ​people​ ​can​ ​travel​ ​encroaches​ ​on
public​ ​freedoms.
If​ ​every​ ​body​ ​of​ ​water​ ​that​ ​is​ ​navigable​ ​could​ ​be​ ​listed​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Schedule,​ ​then​ ​there​ ​would​ ​be
no​ ​need​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Schedule;​ ​the​ ​old​ ​system​ ​is​ ​simpler.​ ​The​ ​only​ ​reason​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Schedule​ ​is​ ​to
restrict​ ​the​ ​number​ ​of​ ​of​ ​waterbodies​ ​where​ ​navigation​ ​rights​ ​apply.​ ​It​ ​represents​ ​a​ ​​de​ ​facto
privatization​ ​of​ ​public​ ​waters​ ​and​ ​the​ ​creation​ ​of​ ​two-tier​ ​environmental​ ​protection.
Recommendation:​ ​Transport​ ​Canada,​ ​Environment​ ​Canada,​ ​Heritage​ ​Canada,​ ​and
Indigenous​ ​and​ ​Northern​ ​Affairs​ ​should​ ​engage​ ​in​ ​a​ ​joint,​ ​public,​ ​national​ ​consultation
process​ ​to​ ​better​ ​understand​ ​and​ ​protect​ ​navigation​ ​traditions.
The​ ​Canadian​ ​Nuclear​ ​Safety​ ​Commission​ ​should​ ​not​ ​conduct​ ​its​ ​own
environmental​ ​assessments
The​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​proposes​ ​to​ ​create​ ​a​ ​single​ ​agency​ ​to​ ​conduct​ ​environmental
assessments​ ​but​ ​to​ ​conduct​ ​“joint”​ ​assessments​ ​for​ ​major​ ​energy​ ​projects.​ ​The​ ​Canadian
Nuclear​ ​Safety​ ​Commission​ ​should​ ​not​ ​be​ ​allowed​ ​to​ ​conduct​ ​separate​ ​or​ ​different
environmental​ ​assessments.​ ​Assessment​ ​for​ ​nuclear-related​ ​projects​ ​should​ ​follow​ ​the​ ​same
rules​ ​and​ ​be​ ​conducted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​same​ ​environmental​ ​assessment​ ​agency​ ​as​ ​all​ ​other
environmental​ ​assessments.​ ​Nuclear​ ​projects​ ​are​ ​typically​ ​accompanied​ ​by​ ​a​ ​number​ ​of
traditional​ ​development​ ​activities​ ​and​ ​emissions​ ​that​ ​require​ ​expertise​ ​not​ ​available​ ​within​ ​the
CNSC​ ​(e.g.,​ ​site​ ​preparation,​ ​road​ ​construction,​ ​air​ ​emissions,​ ​wastewater​ ​emissions).​ ​The
most​ ​efficient,​ ​transparent,​ ​fair,​ ​and​ ​effective​ ​way​ ​to​ ​review​ ​nuclear​ ​projects​ ​is​ ​via​ ​the​ ​same
robust​ ​federal​ ​environmental​ ​assessment​ ​process​ ​other​ ​projects​ ​enjoy.
Page​ ​4​ ​of​ ​7

5.
Recommendation:​ ​Ensure​ ​nuclear​ ​projects​ ​are​ ​assessed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​same​ ​agency​ ​as​ ​all​ ​other
projects.
Environmental​ ​assessments​ ​should​ ​contribute​ ​to​ ​a​ ​growing​ ​body​ ​of
knowledge​ ​about​ ​Canadians​ ​and​ ​their​ ​environment
One​ ​of​ ​the​ ​reasons​ ​Swim​ ​Drink​ ​Fish​ ​Canada​ ​supports​ ​the​ ​proposal​ ​to​ ​consolidate
environmental​ ​assessment​ ​under​ ​one​ ​single​ ​government​ ​agency​ ​is​ ​the​ ​opportunity​ ​this
creates​ ​to​ ​develop​ ​a​ ​robust,​ ​accessible,​ ​ever-growing​ ​body​ ​of​ ​knowledge.​ ​Too​ ​often,
environmental​ ​assessments​ ​are​ ​described​ ​as​ ​if​ ​they​ ​are​ ​approvals​ ​or​ ​permits,​ ​rather​ ​than
processes​​ ​for​ ​planning​ ​and​ ​decision-making.​ ​When​ ​one​ ​assessment​ ​ends,​ ​it​ ​tends​ ​to​ ​collect
dust​ ​on​ ​a​ ​shelf​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​inform​ ​and​ ​improve​ ​subsequent​ ​assessments.​ ​To​ ​protect​ ​the
environment,​ ​stimulate​ ​innovation,​ ​and​ ​be​ ​a​ ​world-leading​ ​sustainable​ ​economy,​ ​we​ ​need​ ​to
become​ ​better​ ​at​ ​understanding​ ​environmental​ ​impacts​ ​and​ ​developing​ ​effective​ ​solutions.
The​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​talks​ ​about​ ​strategic​ ​and​ ​regional​ ​assessment​ ​processes.​ ​It​ ​does​ ​not
talk​ ​as​ ​much​ ​about​ ​where​ ​and​ ​how​ ​this​ ​information​ ​will​ ​be​ ​stored​ ​or​ ​how​ ​it​ ​will​ ​inform
subsequent​ ​decisions.​ ​Rather​ ​than​ ​viewing​ ​environmental​ ​assessments​ ​as​ ​individual,
independent​ ​review​ ​processes,​ ​each​ ​should​ ​build​ ​on​ ​ones​ ​that​ ​came​ ​before​ ​it.​ ​Over​ ​time,
environmental​ ​assessments​ ​will​ ​become​ ​better​ ​and​ ​more​ ​effective​ ​because​ ​our​ ​knowledge
will​ ​have​ ​grown​ ​and​ ​people​ ​will​ ​have​ ​learned.
Care​ ​must​ ​be​ ​taken,​ ​particularly​ ​with​ ​self-assessment​ ​and​ ​substitution​ ​on​ ​the​ ​rise,​ ​to​ ​ensure
that​ ​the​ ​government​ ​builds​ ​its​ ​body​ ​of​ ​knowledge.​ ​Proponents,​ ​consulting​ ​companies,​ ​and
provinces​ ​should​ ​not​ ​control​ ​what​ ​we​ ​know​ ​about​ ​our​ ​environment,​ ​project​ ​impacts,​ ​or
mitigation​ ​options.​ ​As​ ​the​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​notes,​ ​“Information​ ​is​ ​currency​ ​in​ ​our​ ​modern
world.”
Recommendation:​ ​The​ ​creation​ ​of​ ​a​ ​single​ ​agency​ ​should​ ​be​ ​supported​ ​by​ ​the​ ​creation
(or​ ​enhancement)​ ​of​ ​a​ ​robust,​ ​centralized​ ​database​ ​of​ ​information,​ ​knowledge,​ ​and​ ​best
practices​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Canadian​ ​environment,​ ​project​ ​impacts,​ ​and​ ​mitigation
measures.
Page​ ​5​ ​of​ ​7

6.
The​ ​federal​ ​government​ ​cannot​ ​relinquish​ ​authority​ ​over​ ​federal​ ​and
national​ ​matters
The​ ​Discussion​ ​Paper​ ​refers​ ​to​ ​“one​ ​project​ ​-​ ​one​ ​assessment”​ ​as​ ​a​ ​way​ ​of​ ​ensuring​ ​that
there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​duplication​ ​or​ ​inefficiency​ ​when​ ​projects​ ​require​ ​both​ ​federal​ ​and​ ​provincial
approval.​ ​Substitution​ ​and​ ​equivalency​ ​can​ ​be​ ​found​ ​in​ ​both​ ​environmental​ ​assessment​ ​and
fisheries​ ​legislation,​ ​and​ ​demand​ ​careful​ ​review.
One​ ​assessment​ ​would​ ​streamline​ ​the​ ​process​ ​for​ ​both​ ​proponents​ ​and​ ​the​ ​public​ ​and​ ​we
support​ ​the​ ​idea​ ​in​ ​principle,​ ​but​ ​if​ ​done​ ​wrong,​ ​the​ ​“one​ ​assessment​ ​process”​ ​can​ ​undermine
federal​ ​authority​ ​and​ ​constitutional​ ​obligations.
If​ ​there​ ​is​ ​a​ ​single​ ​environmental​ ​assessment​ ​process,​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​government​ ​​must​​ ​retain
responsibility​ ​for​ ​making​ ​its​ ​own​ ​decisions.​ ​Provinces​ ​or​ ​other​ ​bodies​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​allowed​ ​to
substitute​ ​their​ ​own​ ​decisions​ ​for​ ​federal​ ​decisions.​ ​In​ ​other​ ​words,​ ​there​ ​may​ ​be​ ​a​ ​single
environmental​ ​assessment​ ​process,​ ​but​ ​there​ ​may​ ​always​ ​need​ ​to​ ​be​ ​multiple
decision-makers.​ ​We​ ​look​ ​forward​ ​to​ ​an​ ​opportunity​ ​to​ ​weigh​ ​in​ ​on​ ​this​ ​topic​ ​in​ ​greater​ ​detail
when​ ​specific​ ​environmental​ ​assessment​ ​and​ ​fisheries​ ​legislative​ ​changes​ ​are​ ​being
discussed.
Recommendation:​ ​Ensure​ ​that​ ​substitution​ ​and​ ​equivalency​ ​are​ ​reviewed​ ​and​ ​that
federal​ ​authority​ ​is​ ​retained​ ​in​ ​future​ ​versions​ ​of​ ​environmental​ ​assessment​ ​and
fisheries​ ​legislation.
Ensure​ ​environmental​ ​study​ ​and​ ​protection​ ​institutions​ ​are​ ​adequately
funded
Effective​ ​environmental​ ​decisions​ ​are​ ​based​ ​on​ ​the​ ​best​ ​available​ ​information​ ​and​ ​analysis,
including​ ​Indigenous​ ​knowledge,​ ​and​ ​made​ ​by​ ​people​ ​with​ ​the​ ​time​ ​and​ ​resources​ ​they​ ​need
to​ ​conduct​ ​adequate​ ​reviews.​ ​To​ ​ensure​ ​that​ ​improvements​ ​to​ ​federal​ ​environmental
legislation​ ​have​ ​the​ ​desired​ ​benefit,​ ​the​ ​departments​ ​and​ ​agencies​ ​responsible​ ​for
implementing​ ​law​ ​and​ ​policy​ ​must​ ​have​ ​the​ ​resources​ ​they​ ​need.
Recommendation:​ ​Ensure​ ​environmental​ ​study​ ​and​ ​protection​ ​institutions​ ​are
adequately​ ​funded.
Page​ ​6​ ​of​ ​7

7.
Enforce​ ​environmental​ ​laws
Stronger​ ​environmental​ ​laws​ ​and​ ​well-funded​ ​institutions​ ​also​ ​rely​ ​on​ ​consistent,​ ​effective
enforcement​ ​activities.​ ​No​ ​matter​ ​how​ ​well-constructed​ ​the​ ​new​ ​laws​ ​may​ ​be,​ ​they​ ​will​ ​fail​ ​to
protect​ ​Canadians​ ​or​ ​the​ ​environment​ ​if​ ​they​ ​are​ ​not​ ​enforced.
Moreover,​ ​many​ ​environmental​ ​laws​ ​that​ ​are​ ​still​ ​in​ ​place​ ​are​ ​poorly​ ​and​ ​inconsistently
enforced.​ ​Canadian​ ​waters,​ ​in​ ​particular,​ ​would​ ​be​ ​better​ ​protected​ ​if​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​of
Canada​ ​rebuilt​ ​its​ ​enforcement​ ​staff.​ ​No​ ​changes​ ​to​ ​law​ ​are​ ​required.​ ​Benefits​ ​to​ ​the
Canadians​ ​and​ ​the​ ​environment​ ​would​ ​be​ ​immediate.
It​ ​will​ ​take​ ​more​ ​time​ ​to​ ​draft,​ ​refine,​ ​and​ ​pass​ ​new​ ​environmental​ ​laws.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​meantime,​ ​the
Government​ ​of​ ​Canada​ ​should​ ​make​ ​it​ ​a​ ​priority​ ​to​ ​enforce​ ​existing​ ​laws​ ​and​ ​to​ ​restore​ ​a
culture​ ​of​ ​concern​ ​for​ ​the​ ​environment​ ​within​ ​the​ ​federal​ ​government.
Recommendation:​ ​Immediately​ ​restore​ ​enforcement​ ​staff​ ​and​ ​enforcement​ ​programs.
SUMMARY​ ​OF​ ​RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Transport​ ​Canada,​ ​Environment​ ​Canada,​ ​Heritage​ ​Canada,​ ​and​ ​Indigenous​ ​and
Northern​ ​Affairs​ ​should​ ​engage​ ​in​ ​a​ ​joint,​ ​public,​ ​national​ ​consultation​ ​process​ ​to
better​ ​understand​ ​and​ ​protect​ ​navigation​ ​traditions.
2. Ensure​ ​nuclear​ ​projects​ ​are​ ​assessed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​same​ ​agency​ ​as​ ​all​ ​other​ ​projects.
3. The​ ​creation​ ​of​ ​a​ ​single​ ​agency​ ​should​ ​be​ ​supported​ ​by​ ​the​ ​creation​ ​(or
enhancement)​ ​of​ ​a​ ​robust,​ ​centralized​ ​database​ ​of​ ​information,​ ​knowledge,​ ​and​ ​best
practices​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Canadian​ ​environment,​ ​project​ ​impacts,​ ​and​ ​mitigation
measures.
4. Ensure​ ​that​ ​substitution​ ​and​ ​equivalency​ ​are​ ​reviewed​ ​and​ ​that​ ​federal​ ​authority​ ​is
retained​ ​in​ ​future​ ​versions​ ​of​ ​environmental​ ​assessment​ ​and​ ​fisheries​ ​legislation.
5. Ensure​ ​environmental​ ​study​ ​and​ ​protection​ ​institutions​ ​are​ ​adequately​ ​funded.
6. Immediately​ ​restore​ ​enforcement​ ​staff​ ​and​ ​enforcement​ ​programs.
Page​ ​7​ ​of​ ​7